https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117492 --- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm <agrimm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/pki/rpm-gpg(fedora- release), /etc/yum.repos.d(yum, fedora-release) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ( I don't think we need a license file for what is essentially config data) [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fedora-repos-21-0.2.noarch.rpm fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.2.noarch.rpm fedora-repos-21-0.2.src.rpm fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag fedora-repos.noarch: W: no-documentation fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-secondary fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-primary fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repo -> rope, rep, reps fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: no-documentation fedora-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA fedora-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag fedora-repos.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fedora-repos-21.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint fedora-repos-rawhide fedora-repos fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repo -> rope, rep, reps fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: no-documentation fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag fedora-repos.noarch: W: no-documentation fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-secondary fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-primary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Notes: 1) The lint checks looks fine to me. 2) Get rid of the %clean section and the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install 3) Where does the source tarball come from? If these files are stored in a git repo, you should add a comment specifying how the tarball was created. 4) Regarding directory ownership and the requires, I need to fully understand the context here. I _think_ this is stuff being split out of fedora-release to enable separate release packages for different fedora products, right? And in F21, this package will be the sole owner of /etc/pki/rpm-gpg, which is fine. I guess we have to make an exception for /etc/yum.repos.d, as that already had multiple owners, and we probably don't want this package to depend on yum or dnf. It's weird for a directory to change packages without obsoletes or conflicts. Maybe we wnat this to conflict with fedora-release < 21? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review